We should make a template, warning the readers that the information coming from In Utter Darkness is not cannon and may only be a possible future of the world seen through a vision. Andra2404 13:59, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point. template: Alternate Future? PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 14:02, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, it's CANON ;) (spelling wise-I'm a sticker). Secondly, it seems redundant in that a) it's a possible rather than alternate future and it's yet to be seen whether it will truely diverge from the visions. Secondly, an alternate future doesn't denote non-canon. It warrants seperate sections if it comes to that, but not a template.--Hawki 14:12, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Of Timelines and TerransEdit

Two timelines, and it took forever to edit. Now I know how the Terminator wiki editors feel...

Anyway, I thought the edit warranted some explanation, in the seperation of events from the previous form, where they were kind of meshed together. This is subjective, but it seems that there are effectively two timelines in regards to Armageddon. Because of Zeratul's reaction to the Kerrigan revelation in In Utter Darkness, either a) he's sufferred amnessia or b), as the case likely is, didn't recieve Tassadar's warning. I don't know why this would be the case, bar bringing in current time theories and some 40K influence, but at the least, the timeline has changed. We'll have to wait for HotS and LotV for the full story, but at the least, it is now impossible for events in the final prophecy vision to proceed exactly as they did in the present (which will probably be 2504 somehow-Judgement Day was actually hastened in some cases O_0). Hence, two timelines.

Another issue is that of the terran placing in the template. There's nothing inherantly to bar them, but in the end, I'm not sure if they truely warrent a place. They're mentioned, yes, but they're meerly the last species to become extinct before the protoss. There's no implication of any interest the Dark Voice has in them. Yes, they warrent a place in the Great War template despite being a means to an end, but here, they're not even a means. The end is protoss and zerg extinction and the cauterization of the galaxy is a formality. So either a) we list EVERY SAPIENT SPECIES on the template or we keep it to the important stuff. They'll probably end up back on it eventually as per the altered timeline, but for now, I'd rather keep them off, bar being required to list every other sapient species there is.

Course it's open to debate.--Hawki 15:08, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Separate ArticleEdit

'kay, I've been linking the events of LotV to this article, but I'm beginning to think that we need to have an article split. This article can cover the war of the original timeline (as in, stemming from Kerrigan's death to the events of IUD). A separate article can cover the conflict as it's covered in LotV. I say this because:

  • I'm iffy about folding LotV into the Second Great War article. This is subjective, but WoL/HotS and LotV are, IMO, separate conflicts. The former ends with a zerg invasion, and ends with that invasion basically succeeding (Kerrigan kills Mengsk). LotV is primarily between Amon and the protoss. Even if the seeds for LotV are sewn in the first two SC2 games, I'd argue that these are still two distinct conflicts because of the different focus those conflicts have. By way of reference, the Brood War and Great War are considered as separate conflicts, even though the events of one sew the seeds for the events of the other. Also, LotV is an independent product.
  • I don't think folding LotV into the article works structurally. Thing is, the article is written in such a way that it covers the original timeline first, and doesn't start covering LotV until much later. For those who want a "war summary" of LotV (as in, how SGW is a "war summary" of WoL/HotS, and how GW is a "war summary" of SC1, etc.), this would be potentially distracting. Also, there's the side template. It's technically possible to group both timelines on it, but it would be iffy. For instance, we know the Shadow Corps serves Amon in LotV, but does it serve him in the original timeline? Was the Dominion caught up in the same way? The Tal'darim, the purifiers, etc. In terms of structure, I think it's another reason to make a separate article.
  • This does, of course, leave the issue of what that new article would be called. While I've entertained the term "Void War," (Brood War=Brood War, Legacy of the Void=Void War, geddit?) I think the least conjectural title would be "War Against Amon." It also features into the text better without having to treat it as an actual title/proper noun (e.g. "Artanis led the war against Amon," "Raynor was caught up in the war between the protoss and Amon," etc. Other potential titles include:
  • Third Great War
  • Amon-Protoss War

Iffy about the third option as it doesn't address any other faction/race involved, and I'd argue it's an awkward title (Amon being an individual rather than a race/faction). Third Great War I'm also iffy about in that the term "Great War" has so far applied to core installments (SC1, SC2). While an independent product, LotV still bears the SC2 moniker. In the event of a SC3 getting a "Fourth Great War" title for a hypothetical conflict...well, go figure.

I won't do anything drastic yet, but I'd like to get feedback on the idea. The query can be summed up as:

  • Should Legacy of the Void get its own 'war article?' If so, what should that article be called?
  • If Legacy of the Void does not get its own 'war article, should the summary of the conflict remain on the Armageddon page, or be merged into the Second Great War page?

Discuss.--Hawki (talk) 05:22, November 17, 2014 (UTC)

I've downloaded the lore talk but haven't had the chance to watch it. Is the term "Armageddon" specifically used for Legacy of the Void? If not, I'd just add LotV as the "third phase" of the Second Great War.

I don't see them as separate conflicts. Too many things that happened in Wings of Liberty (eg Kerrigan being restored, which in turn gave Narud the energy to restore Amon) feed into the conflict with Amon. At most, they're overlapping wars, sort of like Brood War. (It wasn't just a zerg civil war that spilled over into attacks on the protoss, but also a war of UED conquest against the zerg and Dominion.) PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 13:36, November 17, 2014 (UTC)

I'm willing to go by a SGW position, but there's some problems with the above statement. First, "too many things happened in Wings of Liberty." While Amon's return is dependent on what happens at Char, it isn't dependent on much else in the game. That, and not really anything in HotS. Amon is touched on, certainly, and the Skygeirr arc probably hinders him, but most of HotS is focused on Kerrigan and Mengsk. Amon doesn't become her primary concern until the very end of the game. Second, using the UED example, while it's a case of an overlapping war, the UED's presence is sparked directly by the events of SC1 (aliens reveal themselves, UED formed, etc.). Going by LotV, I'm not sure the same can be said - that the protoss invade Aiur doesn't seem to be dependent on anything that happens in the first two SC2 games, whereas HotS is still directly dependent on everything that occurs before it. In other words, if HotS had never occured and Kerrigan died on Char, the events of LotV would at least still begin the same way. If the Great War lays the seeds for the Brood War (Overmind killed, Aiur ruined, Dominion set up, sparked UED interest), then it feels that WoL/HotS have more or less set up the events that make LotV possible (return of Amon), but aren't really part of the same conflict.
Just my take though. If an SGW merge is a final decision, no biggie.--Hawki (talk) 20:42, November 17, 2014 (UTC)
With a lack of response, thinking of making a War Against Amon page, as we've at least agreed to get the content off this page. If merging with SGW is the final decision, it can again be merged, and "War Against Amon" turned into a redirect.--Hawki (talk) 00:31, November 19, 2014 (UTC)
Moved the data to a War Against Amon page. Can be moved onto the SGW page in the future if need be.--Hawki (talk) 23:46, December 1, 2014 (UTC)


So been thinking on this one, where does it say Zeratul's vision of Armageddon was in 2512? I know Pelagius predicted some catastrophe would happen then that would end the universe, but we don't know if that was the same vision given to Zeratul, especially since now we know Ouros gave Zeratul the vision for a reason. Plus if I remember correctly Pelagius was off his rocker, had a differing view of the end times, and we can't assume that every cult's doomsday predication was leading to the Amon conflict. Should we just remove the date for this conflict then, since it's fairly speculative? Subsourian (talk) 19:48, March 8, 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a fair point. That said, Pelagius's vision should be noted at least in the timeline, but I guess the 2512 date can be removed in most cases.--Hawki (talk) 21:19, March 8, 2017 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.